The current system of public life and politics is tired, rigid, and calcified; and the new system that is being laid overtop the old one often serves to fragment people and their voices and turn us away from one another.
People in public life and politics are in search of new pathways to engage and make a difference. There is a need within public life and politics for more given-and-take, greater focus on people’s real concerns, and harnessing of our civic energies. We need approaches that are less episodic and more sustained; that enable people to come in and out of their engagement over time, because people live life overtime, not simply in fragments of time.
We need to create mechanisms that give people hope. Here, we must think clearly about the mechanisms we are developing in terms of whether they provide people the opportunity to cultivate a sense of authentic hope within themselves and among others.
Let me be clear: authentic hope is what people seek in politics and public life – not the false hope that so many political leaders, pundits, and pollsters peddle.
- Authentic hope comes when we engage with one another, even when we sharply disagree, but despite our differences stay devoted to figuring out a path forward.
- Authentic hope comes when we recognize that change will take time, but that we persevere in our pursuit of the public good.
- Authentic hope comes when we cross the boundaries and dividing lines that people have drawn and insist on maintaining for their own narrow gain, which only keep us separated from each other under false pretense.
- Authentic hope comes when we express clearly our convictions – not as a way to push others away or to denigrate and demonize them, but rather to be clear on our own beliefs and where we stand – all as part of an effort to engage with others, even win for our position.
The potential trap we encounter on our journeys through public life and politics is that we will forget the test of change and hope; or, that we will remember it, but then somehow lose it as we reach for our goal. Or, worse yet, we will state that we are engendering such conditions, only to provide false advertisement.
There is a critical difference between creating meaningful mechanisms and being mechanistic. We need public innovation to develop a new generation of mechanisms to foster real systemic change in our society.
Who will lead us out of this miserable mess? My answer is plain and simple: We will. By that, I mean there is no one leader who can right our course. Instead, leadership must come from people scattered across our country.
It must come from everyday people who make their voice known; who say they want to pursue an alternate path for politics and public life. Believe it or not, the very first step is one of expression – people articulating what they want and believe to one another; people raising their consciousness about the need for a different path; people letting their voices be heard so that their sentiments can bubble up through public opinion polls, talk shows, letters to the editor, and through other venues.
Most organizations are guided by good intentions. But too many of our civic-minded organizations – whether they be community foundations, United Ways, newspapers and public broadcasting, art-based groups, local education funds, not to mention others – are trapped in old assumptions about their roles and old practices about how to see and engage with communities.
Sometimes their efforts can be summed up by the notion that they “act upon” communities rather than act as a “part of” community. They can see themselves almost as outside of the communities in which they work.
Existing organizations must become more catalytic if we are to innovate in public life and politics. After 20 years of working on this challenge, my experience is that organizations need to see themselves as spanning boundaries in communities; they need to work with others to incubate new ideas and then spin those ideas off once they are off-the-ground; they need to actively build connections and networks within their communities to lower obstacles to knowledge-sharing and true collaboration; they need to make engaging the community a part of their daily work – not just a special project from time to time; and they need to cultivate the community’s resources, capacity and political will for change.
if we are to move community life forward, then public innovation needs to be at the core of at least some organizations in our communities. More business as usual won’t get us to where we need to go; nor will simply applying better management techniques, or unfolding new one-off initiatives that fail to change the existing dynamic of our chaotic public life.
Our goal must be to generate new ways of seeing and acting on both persistent and emerging challenges. The goal must be to create new pathways for people to engage, and these pathways must offer the possibility for change and authentic hope.
There are many ways for organizations to start down the new path I am suggesting. Bottom line: we need more civic-minded organizations to see themselves as homes of public innovation – and to innovate.
